Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   White Privilege
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 181 of 276 (778783)
02-24-2016 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Modulous
02-24-2016 10:59 AM


Re: some privilege
Does that answer my question?
Yes I did. The word 'privilege', like all terminology, was in competition with other terms. Privilege became the standard word to use in the natural selection process that is human discourse. Like how language works generally.
I know how language works, that isn't what I was asking.
It seems like there is some kind of tactic being deployed here, or something.
Like, saying "it sucks for black people" isn't really working, so let's go with "it's awesome for white people" and see if that gets us anywhere.
I'm curious why the word "privilege" in particular is the one everyone decided to be harping on. Check my privilege? Huh?
Ringo said it's to make a point, but this whole thing seems rather sleazy to me.
And I don't think the word "privilege" is being used correctly.
quote:
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group
Exactly, a special thing for a particular group, so when you are talking about something normal that practically every single person has, like having two ears, then it doesn't make sense to me to call that a privilege.
It's like you're abusing the language for some sort of shell game where you define peoples' problems as being a lack of special advantages that other people have.
"That guy isn't missing an ear, he is lacking the privilege of having two ears"
It looks like dishonesty to set up some kind of con. I don't like it. Count me out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 10:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2016 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 182 of 276 (778784)
02-24-2016 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Modulous
02-23-2016 6:03 PM


Re: Fairness vs Privilege
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
So I said your options seem to be to have an unfair system.
I asked him who we should be being unfair to.
It's not my position.
Oops! I suppose I did overlook some of the context there. Sorry about that.
I guess being a White guy has caused me to develop some latent sensitivities to the subject.
At the risk of sounding even more like a White apologist, I'd like to delve a bit further into this topic.
The original comment I responded to was this:
quote:
If we can't build a fair system, then we'll have to an unfair one.
Who should we be unfair to?
A race which has been the victims of centuries of outrages for the profit of another race.
Or the race who enriched themselves on the enforced labour, rape and murders of the former race?
The phraseology was clearly chosen to make it sound like being unfair to White people would in fact be... well, fair. You tried to appeal to a sense of fairness in a scenario where the explicit point was to be unfair. But, it's not actually fair: it's just unfairness crafted to look like justice; and it only looks like justice if you think White people should be held responsible for what other White people have done.
I think this is what sparked my original knee-jerk reaction, but I couldn't figure out how to express it properly until now.
If we're going to be racially unfair, it can't be predicated on trying to determine which race "deserves" the unfairness: it has to be based on more pragmatic principles. For example, if the USA chooses to be unfair to White people, we'd be effectively handicapping two-thirds of our population. That doesn't make a lot of sense from an economic or social perspective, even if the White people are willing to nominally submit to it.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2016 6:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 3:39 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 183 of 276 (778796)
02-24-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2016 11:43 AM


Re: some privilege
Hi, Cat Sci.
Cat Sci writes:
I'm curious why the word "privilege" in particular is the one everyone decided to be harping on. Check my privilege? Huh?
I imagine "privilege" is appealing as a term because it sounds like something Black people can't control and can't be held responsible for; just like "deprived" is appealing to you because it sounds like something White people can't control and can't be held responsible for.
We all like the words that absolve us of responsibility.
Cat Sci writes:
It's like you're abusing the language for some sort of shell game where you define peoples' problems as being a lack of special advantages that other people have.
You're trying to force an objective frame of reference onto a Relativistic problem.
From your frame of reference, they are "down there" (poor them).
From their frame of reference, you are "up there" (lucky you).

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 12:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 184 of 276 (778797)
02-24-2016 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Blue Jay
02-24-2016 12:20 PM


Re: some privilege
I imagine "privilege" is appealing as a term because it sounds like something Black people can't control and can't be held responsible for;
That makes sense.
just like "deprived" is appealing to you because it sounds like something White people can't control and can't be held responsible for.
Can't control, sure. But I do think there is some responsibility to be had. African-American culture did not exist until white people created it.
From your frame of reference, they are "down there" (poor them).
From their frame of reference, you are "up there" (lucky you).
And here I am, sitting in the middle...
I'm not rich or poor, and I'm not privileged or deprived.
Meanwhile everyone else looks like they're taking crazy pills.
As a middle-class white guy, I'm supposed to be participating in this somehow, but this "privilege" angle is not working for me. It is driving me away rather than getting me included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2016 12:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2016 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 185 of 276 (778806)
02-24-2016 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2016 12:28 PM


Re: some privilege
Hi, Cat Sci.
Cat Sci writes:
As a middle-class white guy, I'm supposed to be participating in this somehow...
That's funny: because I often get the impression that my participation is not particularly welcome. Of course, that may just be my inferiority complex talking.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 186 of 276 (778811)
02-24-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2016 11:43 AM


Re: some privilege
I'm curious why the word "privilege" in particular is the one everyone decided to be harping on.
It's a term of art in sociology. It's the one that stuck around. People today inherited its usage from people long dead.
I mean its like asking why the word 'evolution'. Various terms were being used, Darwin preferred 'Transmutation' but evolution is the one that stuck as the primary one.
Check my privilege? Huh?
Check your privilege is a rather modern slogan based on a word that gained favour for use in this context in Edwardian times.
It means you should analyze your situation for signs that you are obviously benefiting from privileges which you assume everyone has, but they don't.
Here is an example of my privilege from when I was a child:
quote:
Why are the Nethenopians starving (Ethiopians)?
They can't get food.
Why don't they go to the shop?
They don't have any.
Why don't they just build one?
Now imagine we grow up a little:
quote:
Why are you saying Black Lives Matter? White Lives matter too!
or
quote:
Why complain about the police? All my police encounters have been peaceful and respectful. Black people must be bringing it on themselves'.
This would be an ideal time to ask the person to check their privilege.
It's not appropriate to call them a racist. They are just ignorant of other experiences. They are privileged to NOT experience the fact that deaths of their race were treated less seriously than deaths of the predominant race. They are privileged that police officers assume 'some white guy' is a blank slate as far assumptions of violence or weapon holding. Or drug holding. Privileged to not have to be searched by the police once a week or whatever.
So the slogan 'check your privilege' was born. A simple three word command meant to bring into attention that you may approaching the issue from a position of unconscious privilege and that you are simply blind from the issues because they don't happen to your race in the systematic way they do to black people. It works for other types of privilege too.
And I don't think the word "privilege" is being used correctly.
quote:
Privilege is a special right or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to social class,[1] race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and disability. Two common examples would be having access to a higher education and housing.[1] Privilege can also be emotional or psychological, regarding personal self-confidence and comfort, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society.[2] It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia.[3]
Substantial analysis of privilege and specific social groups have been published and have included a variety of perspectives. Some commentators have addressed limitations in the term, such as its inability to distinguish between concepts of "spared injustice" and "unjust enrichment", and its tendency to conflate disparate groups.
wiki (standard)
quote:
Privilege is a key concept within a sociological and social justice context. It describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another, often arising through the oppression or stigmatization of minority groups. These benefits and advantages are not usually codified as legal rights and arise as secondary qualities to suppression. As such, they can be difficult to spot, and remain unseen or unrecognised. This privilege blindness sometimes leads those who ostensibly support equal rights to inadvertently marginalize the concerns of less-privileged groups.
wiki (rational)
It's been used this way for the last 100 years.
Your problem seems to be that you hadn't heard it used this way until recently and you might normally think of privilege as being quite exclusive - something that only rich and powerful people really have as that was conversational usage for a good while. It's a technical term of art in use since 1911. Like 'evolution' has a meaning its own right and can be used in different ways in different contexts. But in many contexts it refers to a specific biological phenomena.
Exactly, a special thing for a particular group, so when you are talking about something normal that practically every single person has, like having two ears, then it doesn't make sense to me to call that a privilege.
You'll notice that normally people don't. I mean technically having two ears grants privileges which you would notice most if you only had one. For instance, being shortsighted and one eared presents a problem for wearing glasses. It's a disability, but its not crippling like some other disabilities, and the privileges two eared people have don't typically result in one eared people being socially marginalized. So you are examining a subtle edge case which is a terrible idea when trying to understand a concept.
Have you read the list from one author about the White Privileges she felt she had after much introspection and talking with non-white friends and colleagues? The privileges there are probably more numerous, cover a wider range of issues or the issues are of such significance (employment, reputation, raising children) and they affect many people in pretty significant ways.
It's like you're abusing the language for some sort of shell game where you define peoples' problems as being a lack of special advantages that other people have.
Except I'm just using a word with an accepted and longstanding technical definition within academia. I'm not abusing the language, I'm using the language our ancestors left us.
"That guy isn't missing an ear, he is lacking the privilege of having two ears"
It looks like dishonesty to set up some kind of con. I don't like it. Count me out.
A century long setup to a con?
Seems inplausible.
Besides your characterisation is not right. It should be
"That guy is missing an ear, he is lacking the privilege of being able to wear normal glasses without them falling off, and maybe lacks the privilege of full and complete hearing, protection from the rain, directionality of sound etc etc."
or
"That guy is allergic to everything. I'm aware that I have the privilege of not having to check food ingredient labels as a survival mechanism and I should avoid mocking this behaviour. I should also consider taking measures to make his life easier by checking nut contents of things before it gets to him. I'm sure he's sick of doing it; he'll probably double check but he might appreciate that he has other people looking out for him and aware of his problems...."
or
"That guy is black. I am privileged to be able to walk into O'Malley's bar without sour looks, secretive whispers and a reasonable fear of racially motivated violence on top of any alcohol related ones. I should probably not make a big public deal out of him declining coming out to drink with us."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 3:53 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 187 of 276 (778818)
02-24-2016 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Blue Jay
02-24-2016 11:49 AM


the history and mathematics of prejudice
Oops! I suppose I did overlook some of the context there. Sorry about that.
Apology accepted fully.
And here is my own:
I am sorry for any lack of clarity when clearing up the oversight. I was on heavy duty painkillers and was actually quite woozy when I wrote a couple of those messages and didn't realize how woolly I was until I had slept it off.
At the risk of sounding even more like a White apologist, I'd like to delve a bit further into this topic.
Haha
The phraseology was clearly chosen to make it sound like being unfair to White people would in fact be... well, fair.
Preferable. Noble. Fairer, maybe. Not fair. The system is consciously, explicitly and from the outset acknowledged as fundamentally unfair.
But, it's not actually fair: it's just unfairness crafted to look like justice; and it only looks like justice if you think White people should be held responsible for what other White people have done.
Justice? No. It's explicitly unfair. Unfair. It's an unfair system.
The question is about history. By creating a system today to be used going forwards, we are creating something that is part of a long history of race relations. Black people have less wealth between them than white people per capita. This is because of our history of oppression and tyranny.
Does anybody who thinks oppressing whites in this system of the future is wrong (eg., the Affirmative Action critics) be willing to say that it would be preferable instead to build a system that deliberately disadvantages black people?
Is anyone willing to take an awful history we had no control over, and exhibit our control by continuing the tradition? Then we *should* feel white guilt.
I am essentially removing the default as an option. I am restructuring the situation to avoid conservativism seeming as noble as it might (ie., arguing for the status quo) The status quo is the same as building a system to deliberately target black people. Can the status quoers really say that?
The history is relevant, but not because it would be just to get 'even' on white people. It's relevant because I want to see if anybody has the balls to explicitly argue for what their arguments imply. Like, if 3 Germans were locked in a room with a Jewish person and the only exit is a room full of gas from a rupture. A valve can be turned off in that same room but not before a lethal exposure has occurred. It would be pretty unusual for Germans aware of history to conspire and argue that they should make the Jewish guy get gassed to death - especially if their was video and audio surveillance equipment in their room.
White people arguing *for* discriminating against black people is distasteful in like manner.
That's the rhetorical angle.
Also, at least discriminating against white people has the advantage of a broad social correction between the races. Allow for more money to flow into black families so they can climb the social ladder we took away from them after their ancestors built it for our ancestors and us. AS I said, the effects of history reverberates strongly into today. The USA just a lifetime ago was very often an awful place for black people. The disadvantages a black person's mother experienced, disadvantages him today. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. And almost all rich people are white.
If anyone wants to provision an argument as to why we should discriminate against blacks they can have at it.
Turns out Hyro did provide a reason to discriminate against blacks. Apparently they disadvantage themselves so we can just have that be the system.
For example, if the USA chooses to be unfair to White people, we'd be effectively handicapping two-thirds of our population. That doesn't make a lot of sense from an economic or social perspective, even if the White people are willing to nominally submit to it.
Yeah, more math is needed. The same number of jobs are being awarded, the same average wage will exist. It's just more of those jobs will have black workers who will be paid the same (which may be more than now, I haven't looked up race/wage issues recntly) but since they are replacing equally paid white people the economic situation won't change other than by adding more wealth to African-Americans as a group.
Furthermore, the handicap, distributing between 2/3 of people will be less individually onerous than the same handicap distributed between 1/10 of people. Think about it this way: Even if black people get the job more than 50% of the time when they are competing against an equally qualified white person. The white person still finds themselves against an equally qualified black competitor 1/10 of the time. The black person faces a white equally qualified competitor 2/3 of the time. Examining only the case of one equally qualified competitor.
That means the black person risks losing out 2/3 of the time they equally best.
White guys, only 1/10 times.
If the risk of losing out is the same (we examine things from equally unfair systems) The individual white guy has a much lower chance of being negatively affected by the policy per job application than the black guy living under corresponding systematic discrimination. Slash gal etc.
So yeah, you'll need to show your working because this affect on its own suggests somethings up with your economic/social sense perspective.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2016 11:49 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2016 6:33 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 202 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-26-2016 2:07 AM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 276 (778819)
02-24-2016 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Modulous
02-24-2016 2:01 PM


Re: some privilege
It's a term of art in sociology. It's the one that stuck around. People today inherited its usage from people long dead.
I mean its like asking why the word 'evolution'. Various terms were being used, Darwin preferred 'Transmutation' but evolution is the one that stuck as the primary one.
I've heard the word "privilege" in the last 5 years a hundred times the amount I heard it in the 30 before that.
Something has changed.
Check your privilege is a rather modern slogan based on a word that gained favour for use in this context in Edwardian times.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. So it's been around for 100 years but only recently has it become something that a lot of people are using frequently.
That's what I was curious about: how come all of the sudden its blown up? Where did that come from?
But you've already explained it well enough, so thank you. You were right about it meaning the rich and powerful part to me.
You'll notice that normally people don't.
Well, yes, Ringo is fairly abnormal
Except I'm just using a word with an accepted and longstanding technical definition within academia. I'm not abusing the language, I'm using the language our ancestors left us.
I'm sorry, I meant the proverbial you.
A century long setup to a con?
Seems inplausible.
No, like, the last 5 years.
It's different now, and I'm not buying it.
I know it's awesome being a white guy with plenty of money. I'm not ignorant of my "privilege" and I've yet to be in a situation where I need to check it. So I guess I'm good already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 2:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 02-25-2016 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 189 of 276 (778824)
02-24-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2016 3:53 PM


Re: some privilege
I've heard the word "privilege" in the last 5 years a hundred times the amount I heard it in the 30 before that.
Something has changed.
This was written, bringing the term gradually into more general consciousness.
That's what the wikipedia article on the subject indicates with linking to a newspaper article in The Guardian (UK) which cited this particular article as a meme-seed.
It was the first thing I saw on the subject and that would have been about 2006/2007.
I'm sorry, I meant the proverbial you.
Are you judging the concept by the fact that some people wield it as a rhetorical weapon?
It's different now, and I'm not buying it.
Yes. It's different because it is no longer used this way in academia but is now in common discourse. The slogan is an ideal way to express a complex concept in media such as Twitter. This means it gets used more loosely in general, people don't quite use the term in a way that makes sense from the technical perspective and sometimes they are still basically right, sometimes it leads them to all kinds of wrong.
This isn't suspicious. Lots of terms hang around in academia before they enter into common discourse in one way or another. Waterboarding, hitman, carcinogenic, computer, spacetime, Schrodinger's Cat etc. and sometimes they don't get used quite right.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2016 7:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 190 of 276 (778834)
02-24-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
02-24-2016 3:39 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
Justice? No. It's explicitly unfair. Unfair. It's an unfair system.
Well, I certainly don't disagree that you used the word "unfair."
Modulous writes:
Does anybody who thinks oppressing whites in this system of the future is wrong (eg., the Affirmative Action critics) be willing to say that it would be preferable instead to build a system that deliberately disadvantages black people?
Personally, I won't: I'm a total coward. I take psychiatric medication to help me overcome my fear of social interactions: there's no way in hell I'm going to start a social revolution, even if I believed strongly in it (which, in this case, I don't).
Modulous writes:
Is anyone willing to take an awful history we had no control over, and exhibit our control by continuing the tradition? Then we *should* feel white guilt.
I am essentially removing the default as an option. I am restructuring the situation to avoid conservativism seeming as noble as it might (ie., arguing for the status quo) The status quo is the same as building a system to deliberately target black people. Can the status quoers really say that?
The history is relevant, but not because it would be just to get 'even' on white people. It's relevant because I want to see if anybody has the balls to explicitly argue for what their arguments imply.
I respect the argument you've made, and I agree that it's a completely valid and legitimate argument. But I can't but feel like you just took 313 words to say pretty much the exact same thing I said, which is that you phrased it specifically to give the impression that being unfair to White people is fair (or fairer), for historical reasons.
Modulous writes:
Yeah, more math is needed. The same number of jobs are being awarded, the same average wage will exist...
Yes, I suppose I neglected a lot of the specifics here. Hmm.
Perhaps my overall argument can be reduced to little more than an objection to your rhetorical style. I'll need to think about it some more to decide if there's really anything else I object to.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 3:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 7:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 191 of 276 (778835)
02-24-2016 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Blue Jay
02-24-2016 6:33 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
I respect the argument you've made, and I agree that it's a completely valid and legitimate argument. But I can't but feel like you just took 313 words to say pretty much the exact same thing I said, which is that you phrased it specifically to give the impression that being unfair to White people is fair (or fairer), for historical reasons.
I was more succinct the first time, the explanation grew each as you dug down into the details of my reasoning. Also, my argument may be simplified to what you say, but it isn't quite right to simply say that. My argument included both the concept of historical pressures, our own vision of how history would judge such a hypothetical decision, how we will judge ourselves today for doing it, the twist of making one or other option a choice, the notion of making it a decision between self-serving and self-sacrificing options. It takes many more words to explain what I hoped would be evident from the structure of the argument itself.
Perhaps my overall argument can be reduced to little more than an objection to your rhetorical style.
I've had conversations conversations with people like Hyro before. There are denials, accusations and further denials regarding guilt, finger pointing, saying that sometimes other races do better. I think my first response to Hyro was to give him the benefit of the doubt but here is how he started:
quote:
Whether "white privilege" exists or not, what do you suggest be done in lieu of it?
I assume 'in lieu' is not not what was meant, but instead vis--vis or something. Then he slipped into the fairly standard defensive mode
quote:
Because implicit in the narrative is that I should feel bad for something that I have no control over.
Before trying to point elsewhere
quote:
Seems that in whatever country their is predominant culture would tend to have some perceived privilege.
Does Black Privilege exist in Zimbabwe or Brown Privilege exist in Venezuela?
This is practically a script, psychologists might call it a schema. It's some kind of standard collection of defenses against accusations that aren't made. He we have a fairly normal person. They aren't racist, but they may not be fully informed of certain things that if they were, may cause them to reconsider.
Since most of them aren't racist sometimes it pays to remind them that the default state of affairs in many cases would be considered racist if it was a system that was consciously built with foresight to the consequences. It's not a perfect method, but I have successes with it more than with some other methods. It also helps cut to the chase if I am talking to a racist. Sometimes you get to hear how maybe the 'Blacks bring it on themselves which is why even Latinos hate 'em' theory is a more significant factor than 'White people as a group have empirically observed biases against black people as a group, which has empirically been demonstrated to have significant social impacts on the individuals affected over sufficiently large sample sizes'
The 'Yeah but...' method can often work, but it's best results are in verbal contexts on the subject. Validate their perception, but argue other people's experiences may differ and attempt to elicit a counter validation at least that one has a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2016 6:33 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2016 10:48 AM Modulous has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 192 of 276 (778860)
02-25-2016 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Modulous
02-24-2016 7:19 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
Since most of them aren't racist sometimes it pays to remind them that the default state of affairs in many cases would be considered racist if it was a system that was consciously built with foresight to the consequences.
Yeah, I guess I understand that what you were doing was rather more nuanced than what I said, and it all makes sense.
I think my ultimate disfavor with it stems from the fact that it was an emotional manipulation. I wanted to gloss the discussion with an air of pragmatism and logic, mainly because the emotions and politics are hazardous; but you were trying to force a confrontation with emotions. It made the whole thing very uncomfortable, which I suppose was the purpose you had in mind.
In spite of all that, I'm still very uncomfortable relying on emotion to make this kind of decision.
Modulous writes:
I assume 'in lieu' is not not what was meant, but instead vis--vis or something.
Life would be a lot easier if we all stopped pretending that French is a useful language.
Modulous writes:
This is practically a script, psychologists might call it a schema. It's some kind of standard collection of defenses against accusations that aren't made. He we have a fairly normal person. They aren't racist, but they may not be fully informed of certain things that if they were, may cause them to reconsider.
Interesting. You should use this in a Turing test sometime.
Still, even after you explain it, I can't help but think that Hyro's (and my) objections were at least partially justified. I mean, from one example that you used on me:
Modulous writes:
Is anyone willing to take an awful history we had no control over, and exhibit our control by continuing the tradition? Then we *should* feel white guilt.
Since I think we're still talking about who gets the job/interview, presumably I should feel White Guilt if I was hired instead of an equally-qualified Black candidate.
I feel like it's perfectly reasonable and appropriate to then ask, "If the employer instead hired the equally-qualified Black candidate, should he feel Black Guilt?"
Is that just a standard defense? Or is it a legitimate and honest question being asked?
I think I can work out on my own that we should assume a "race factor" in the equation. That is, we should assume that being Black holds people back in some ways, so that a Black candidate's credentials most likely underestimate their ability, but a White candidate's credentials will more accurately estimate their ability.
But, if you that aspect of the reasoning isn't explained, interpreting it as an accusation seems like a rather logical conclusion.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 7:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 2:18 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 193 of 276 (778862)
02-25-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2016 3:53 PM


Re: some privilege
Cat Sci writes:
Well, yes, Ringo is fairly abnormal
Thank you. I try to rise above the lowest common denominator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2016 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2016 7:07 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 194 of 276 (778874)
02-25-2016 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Blue Jay
02-25-2016 10:48 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
I think my ultimate disfavor with it stems from the fact that it was an emotional manipulation. I wanted to gloss the discussion with an air of pragmatism and logic, mainly because the emotions and politics are hazardous; but you were trying to force a confrontation with emotions. It made the whole thing very uncomfortable, which I suppose was the purpose you had in mind.
In spite of all that, I'm still very uncomfortable relying on emotion to make this kind of decision.
I don't disagree with you. I prefer to discuss as much as I can with pragmatism, logic and dispassion.
Then again, pathos is a useful technique in rhetoric. Given I was making a moral point, and given that the foundation of morality is based on emotion, and given that Hyro's formative moral systems were....skewed...I took the wager that Hyro would not be won over with cold reason alone. I would have to take a swipe at the trunk of emotion.
Look at our earliest interactions in this thread. Hyro's position seemed to be quite reflexive, defensive over 'white guilt' issues. Emotion was still very much entangled with the moral and even ontological dimension of privilege in Hyro's being.
In The psychology of political correctness we are discussing Haidt's (et al) work which is built on the foundation of emotion especially a sense of disgust being the main part of our moral choices. The reasons and rationalizations come afterwards.
Life would be a lot easier if we all stopped pretending that French is a useful language.
I'm not au fait with undertones but you clearly have an arrire-pense: quelle horreur!
Is anyone willing to take an awful history we had no control over, and exhibit our control by continuing the tradition? Then we *should* feel white guilt.
Since I think we're still talking about who gets the job/interview, presumably I should feel White Guilt if I was hired instead of an equally-qualified Black candidate.
Not so, that would come under the rubric of having no control over something. I was talking of consciously deciding to be racist. Specifically, 'continuing the tradition' wouldn't be getting hired, but instead consciously choosing a white candidate over a black one because of their race.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2016 10:48 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by xongsmith, posted 02-25-2016 6:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 195 of 276 (778884)
02-25-2016 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Modulous
02-25-2016 2:18 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Modulous writes (an excerpt here):
Given I was making a moral point, and given that the foundation of morality is based on emotion...{deletia}...
Shouldn't the foundation of morality be empathy?
(putting my fingers under my chin)

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 2:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 6:18 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024